Once again, Richard Lenski has replied to the goons and fools at Conservapædia, and boy, does he ever outclass them. For a quick outline of the saga, read this summary at A Candid World; basically, Andy Schlafly has been demanding every bit of data from Richard Lenski’s work on the evolution of E. coli, despite the fact that Schlafly doesn’t have the background to understand it and doesn’t have any plan for what he would do with it if he got it. Lenski has been polite and helpful in his replies; his first response is a model for how to explain difficult science to a bullying ideologue. Now his second response is available, and while he has clearly lost some patience and is unequivocal in denouncing their bad faith efforts to discredit good science, he still gives an awfully good and instructional discussion.

I’ve put the whole thing below the fold, in case you’d rather not click through to that wretched hive of pretentious villainy at Conservapædia.

I tried to be polite, civil and respectful in my reply to your first email, despite its rude tone and uninformed content. Given the continued rudeness of your second email, and the willfully ignorant and slanderous content on your website, my second response will be less polite. I expect you to post my response in its entirety; if not, I will make sure that is made publicly available through other channels.

I offer this lengthy reply because I am an educator as well as a scientist. It is my sincere hope that some readers might learn something from this exchange, even if you do not.

First, it seems that reading might not be your strongest suit given your initial letter, which showed that you had not read our paper, and given subsequent conversations with your followers, in which you wrote that you still had not bothered to read our paper. You wrote: “I did skim Lenski’s paper …” If you have not even read the original paper, how do you have any basis of understanding from which to question, much less criticize, the data that are presented therein?

Second, your capacity to misinterpret and/or misrepresent facts is plain in the third request in your first letter, where you said: “In addition, there is skepticism that 3 new and useful proteins appeared in the colony around generation 20,000.” That statement was followed by a link to a news article from NewScientist that briefly reported on our work. I assumed you had simply misunderstood that article, because there is not even a mention of proteins anywhere in the news article. As I replied, “We make no such claim anywhere in our paper, nor do I think it is correct. Proteins do not ‘appear out of the blue’, in any case.” So where did your confused assertion come from? It appears to have come from one of your earlier discussions, in which an acoltye (Able806, who to his credit at least seems to have attempted to read our paper) wrote:

“I think it might be best to clarify some of Richard’s work. He started his E.Coli project in 1988 and has been running the project for 20 years now; his protocols are available to the general public. The New Scientist article is not very technical but the paper at PNAS is. The change was based on one of his colonies developing the ability to absorb citrate, something not found in wild E.Coli. This occurred around 31,500 generations and is based on the development of 3 proteins in the E.Coli genome. What his future work will be is to look at what caused the development of these 3 proteins around generation 20,000 of that particular colony. …”

As further evidence of your inability to keep even a few simple facts straight, you later wrote the following: “It [my reply] did clarify that his claims are not as strong as some evolutionists have insisted.” But no competent biologist would, after reading our paper with any care, insist (or even suggest) that “3 new and useful proteins appeared in the colony around generation 20,000″ or any similar nonsense. It is only in your letter, and in your acolyte’s confused interpretation of our paper, that I have ever seen such a claim. Am I or the reporter for NewScientist somehow responsible for the confusion that reflects your own laziness and apparent inability to distinguish between a scientific paper, a news article, and a confused summary posted by an acolyte on your own website?

Third, it is apparent to me, and many others who have followed this exchange and your on-line discussions of how to proceed, that you are not acting in good faith in requests for data. From the posted discussion on your web site, it is obvious that you lack any expertise in the relevant fields. Several of your acolytes have pointed this out to you, and that your motives are unclear or questionable at best, but you and your cronies dismissed their concerns as rants and even expelled some of them from posting on your website. [Ed.: citation omitted due to spam filter] Several also pointed out that I had very quickly and straightforwardly responded that the methods and data supporting the evolution of the citrate-utilization capacity are already provided in our paper. One poster in your discussions, Aaronp, wrote:

“I read Lenski’s paper, and as a trained microbiologist, I thought that it was both thorough and well done. His claims are backed by good data, namely that which was presented in the figures. I went through each of the figures after Aschlafly said that they were uninformative. Actually, they are basic figures that show the population explosion of the bacterial cultures after the Cit+ mutation occurred. These figures show that the cultures increased in size and mass at a given timepoint, being able to do so because they had evolved a mechanism to utilize a new nutrient, without the assistance of helper plasmids. … Lenksi’s paper, while not the most definite I’ve seen, is still a very well-researched paper that supports its claims nicely.”

(As far as I saw, Aaronp is the only poster who asserted any expertise in microbiology.) As further evidence of the absence of good-faith discussion about our research, in the discussion thread that began even before you sent your first email to me, I counted the words “fraud” or “fraudulent” being used more than 10 times, including one acolyte, TonyT, who says bluntly that I am “clearly a fraudulent hack.” In the discussion thread that also includes comments after my first reply, the number of times those same words are used has increased to 20, with the word “hoax” also now entering the discussion. A few posters wisely counseled against such slander but that did not deter you. I must say, it is surprising that someone with a law degree would make, and allow on his website, so many nasty comments that implicitly and even explicitly impugn my integrity, and by extension that of my collaborators, without any grounds whatsoever and reflecting only your dogmatic adherence to certain beliefs.

Finally, let me now turn to our data. As I said before, the relevant methods and data about the evolution of the citrate-using bacteria are in our paper. In three places in our paper, we did say “data not shown”, which is common in scientific papers owing to limitations in page length, especially for secondary or minor points. None of the places where we made such references concern the existence of the citrate-using bacteria; they concern only certain secondary properties of those bacteria. We will gladly post those additional data on my website.

It is my impression that you seem to think we have only paper and electronic records of having seen some unusual E. coli. If we made serious errors or misrepresentations, you would surely like to find them in those records. If we did not, then – as some of your acolytes have suggested – you might assert that our records are themselves untrustworthy because, well, because you said so, I guess. But perhaps because you did not bother even to read our paper, or perhaps because you aren’t very bright, you seem not to understand that we have the actual, living bacteria that exhibit the properties reported in our paper, including both the ancestral strain used to start this long-term experiment and its evolved citrate-using descendants. In other words, it’s not that we claim to have glimpsed “a unicorn in the garden” – we have a whole population of them living in my lab! [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unicorn_in_the_Garden] And lest you accuse me further of fraud, I do not literally mean that we have unicorns in the lab. Rather, I am making a literary allusion. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allusion]

One of your acolytes, Dr. Richard Paley, actually grasped this point. He does not appear to understand the practice and limitations of science, but at least he realizes that we have the bacteria, and that they provide “the real data that we [that’s you and your gang] need”. Here’s what this Dr. Paley had to say:

“I think there’s a great deal of misunderstanding here from the critics of Mr. Schlafly and obfuscation on the part of Prof. Lenski and his supporters. The real data that we need are not in the paper. Rather they are in the bacteria used in the experiments themselves. Prof. Lenski claims that these bacteria ‘evolved’ novel traits and that these were preceded by the evolution of ‘potentiated genotypes’, from which the traits could be ‘reevolved’ using preserved colonies from those generations. But how are we to know if these traits weren’t ‘potentiated’ by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right? The only way this can be settled is if we have access to the genetic sequences of the bacteria colonies so that we can apply CSI techniques and determine if these ‘potentiated genotypes’ originated through blind chance or intelligence. But with the physical specimens in the hands of Darwinists, who claim they will get around to the sequencing at some unspecifed future time, how can we trust that this data will be forthcoming and forthright? Thus, Prof. Lenski et al. should supply Conservapedia, as stewards, with samples of the preserved E. coli colonies so that the data can be accessible to unbiased researchers outside of the hegemony of the Darwinian academia, even if it won’t be put to immediate examination by Mr. Schlafly. This is simply about keeping tax-payer-funded scientists honest.”

So, will we share the bacteria? Of course we will, with competent scientists. Now, if I was really mean, I might only share the ancestral strain, and let the scientists undertake the 20 years of our experiment. Or if I was only a little bit mean, maybe I’d also send the potentiated bacteria, and let the recipients then repeat the several years of incredibly pain-staking work that my superb doctoral student, Zachary Blount, performed to test some 40 trillion (40,000,000,000,000) cells, which generated 19 additional citrate-using mutants. But I’m a nice guy, at least when treated with some common courtesy, so if a competent scientist asks for them, I would even send a sample of the evolved E. coli that now grows vigorously on citrate. A competent microbiologist, perhaps requiring the assistance of a competent molecular geneticist, would readily confirm the following properties reported in our paper: (i) The ancestral strain does not grow in DM0 (zero glucose, but containing citrate), the recipe for which can be found on my web site, except leaving the glucose out of the standard recipe as stated in our paper. (ii) The evolved citrate-using strain, by contrast, grows well in that exact same medium. (iii) To confirm that the evolved strain is not some contaminating species but is, in fact, derived from the ancestral strain in our study, one could check a number of traits and genes that identify the ancestor as E. coli, and the evolved strains as a descendant thereof, as reported in our paper. (iv) One could also sequence the pykF and nadR genes in the ancestor and evolved citrate-using strains. One would find that the evolved bacteria have mutations in each of these genes. These mutations precisely match those that we reported in our previous work, and they identify the evolved citrate-using mutants as having evolved in the population designated Ara-3 of the long-term evolution experiment, as opposed to any of the other 11 populations in that experiment. And one could go on and on from there to confirm the findings in our paper, and perhaps obtain additional data of the sort that we are currently pursuing.

Before I could send anyone any bacterial strains, in order to comply with good scientific practices I would require evidence of the requesting scientist’s credentials including: (i) affiliation with an appropriate unit in some university or research center with appropriate facilities for storing (-80ÂºC freezer), handling (incubators, etc.), and disposing of bacteria (autoclave); and (ii) some evidence, such as peer-reviewed publications, that indicate that the receiving scientist knows how to work with bacteria, so that I and my university can be sure we are sending biological materials to someone that knows how to handle them. By the way, our strains are not derived from one of the pathogenic varieties of E. coli that are a frequent cause of food-borne illnesses. However, even non-pathogenic strains may cause problems for those who are immune-compromised or otherwise more vulnerable to infection. Also, my university requires that a Material Transfer Agreement be executed before we can ship any strains. That agreement would not constrain a receiving scientist from publishing his or her results. However, if an incompetent or fraudulent hack (note that I make no reference to any person, as this is strictly a hypothetical scenario, one that I doubt would occur) were to make false or misleading claims about our strains, then I’m confident that some highly qualified scientists would join the fray, examine the strains, and sort out who was right and who was wrong. That’s the way science works.

I would also generally ask what the requesting scientist intends to do with our strains. Why? It helps me to gauge the requester’s expertise. I might be able to point out useful references, for example. Moreover, as I’ve said, we are continuing our work with these strains, on multiple fronts, as explained in considerable detail in the Discussion section of our paper. I would not be happy to see our work “scooped” by another team – especially for the sake of the outstanding students and postdocs in my group who are hard at work on these fronts. However, that request to allow us to proceed, without risk of being scooped on work in which we have made a substantial investment of time and effort, would be just that: a request. In other words, we would respect PNAS policy to share those strains with any competent scientist who complied with my university’s requirements for the MTA and any other relevant legal restrictions. If any such request requires substantial time or resources (we have thousands of samples from this and many other experiments), then of course I would expect the recipient to bear those costs.

So there you have it. I know that I’ve been a bit less polite in this response than in my previous one, but I’m still behaving far more politely than you deserve given your rude, willfully ignorant, and slanderous behavior. And I’ve spent far more time responding than you deserve. However, as I said at the outset, I take education seriously, and I know some of your acolytes still have the ability and desire to think, as do many others who will read this exchange.

Sincerely,

Richard Lenski

P.S. Did you know that your own bowels harbor something like a billion (1,000,000,000) E. coli at this very moment? So remember to wash your hands after going to the toilet, as I hope your mother taught you. Simple calculations imply that there are something like 10^20 = 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 E. coli alive on our planet at any moment. Even if they divide just once per day, and given a typical mutation rate of 10^-9 or 10^-10 per base-pair per generation, then pretty much every possible double mutation would occur every day or so. That’s a lot of opportunity for evolution.

P.P.S. I hope that some readers might get a chuckle out of this story. The same Sunday (15 June 2008) that you and some of your acolytes were posting and promoting scurrilous attacks on me and our research (wasn’t that a bit disrespectful of the Sabbath?), I was in a church attending a wedding. And do you know what Old Testament lesson was read? It was Genesis 1:27-28, in which God created Man and Woman. It’s a very simple and lovely story, and I did not ask any questions, storm out, or demand the evidence that it happened as written at a time when science did not yet exist. I was there in the realm of spirituality and mutual respect, not confusing a house of religion for a science class or laboratory. And it was a beautiful wedding, too.

P.P.P.S. You may be unable to understand, or unwilling to accept, that evolution occurs. And yet, life evolves! [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pur_si_muove] From the content on your website, it is clear that you, like many others, view God as the Creator of the Universe. I respect that view. I find it baffling, however, that someone can worship God as the all-mighty Creator while, at the same time, denying even the possibility (not to mention the overwhelming evidence) that God’s Creation involved evolution. It is as though a person thinks that God must have the same limitations when it comes to creation as a person who is unable to understand, or even attempt to understand, the world in which we live. Isn’t that view insulting to God?

P.P.P.P.S. I noticed that you say that one of your favorite articles on your website is the one on “Deceit.” That article begins as follows: “Deceit is the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another. Christianity and Judaism teach that deceit is wrong. For example, the Old Testament says, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.'” You really should think more carefully about what that commandment means before you go around bearing false witness against others.

I am in absolute awe of Dr. Lenski response. How he can write so clearly and effectively when he must have been simply vibrating is simply amazing. I can’t recall ever reading such a devastating smack-down. It should be fascinating to Schlafly’s answer.

If Schlafly has a grain of sense and another grain of decency, he will humbly apologize for his idiotic letters, send his poor suffering home-schooled “students” to a real school, and then skulk off to some cave somewhere, never to be heard from again.

But of course, he has neither sense nor decency; he is Andy Schlafly.

If nothing else, Lenski’s brilliant reply made my day, and made the day of a lot of other defenders of science and opponents of charlatans, I reckon.

I really appreciate Lenski’s PPPS. He sums up, quite nicely, why Intelligent Design and/or Creationism are really an affront to those who believe in God. To look at evolution, such a subtle and sublime process, and then discard it in favor of the notion that an all-powerful being had to “stack the deck” instead… well, so much for preserving the notion of your God’s integrity, huh?

If Schlafly has a grain of sense and another grain of decency, he will humbly apologize for his idiotic letters, send his poor suffering home-schooled “students” to a real school, and then skulk off to some cave somewhere, never to be heard from again.

But of course, he has neither sense nor decency; he is Andy Schlafly.

If nothing else, Lenski’s brilliant reply made my day, and made the day of a lot of other defenders of science and opponents of charlatans, I reckon.

I’ve rarely seen someone so utterly dismembered… and so politely at that. I do hope his efforts aren’t in vain; conserapaedia trolls are amazingly thick-headed. When did they evolve skulls like that anyhow?

Note also that in the discussion at the Con-wiki Behe’s name gets mentioned as one who could review the work — Apparently, they don’t know that Behe already weighed in and makes no mention of ‘fraud’, ‘deceit’, or even poor experimmental procedure. I don’t think he questions the work itself.

An exemplary piece, demonstrating the proper way to handle the likes of Schlafly.

AAlthough why Lenski should think it impolite is rather mystifying – it’s far, far more polite than Schlafly deserves, and probably all the more effective for that, inasmuch as anything is likely to have an effect on such boneheadedness.

A superb response. I particularly like his comment on evolution and god; as a young child, before I was sure enough of my reasoning to abandon completely the idea of deities, I used to make the same point. Why must believers continually limit what they claim most fanatically to be an omnipotent being? Is there not more love in taking a few billion years to do it right, than to just throw some sand together? I’m not one for religion, but at least I could respect such a view.

The comment by “Dr. Paley” really sums up the reason why creationists cannot be talked with rationally:

But how are we to know if these traits weren’t ‘potentiated’ by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right?

It doesn’t matter what scientific evidence we give them if in their mind the root cause of all is Todd.

Lenski was pure class. Unfortunately, like the dismembered Black Knight, Schlafly is not going to concede defeat, when he really should just quietly retire from public life, never to be heard from again.

“Really? He said he would put the data on his website, and I think Behe meets Lenski’s three qualifications for a scientist to whom he would release the bacteria. Drochld 10:55, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Behe? Are you serious? He’s supposed to be a Creation Scientist? The guy believes in the big bang, an earth billions of years old, and evolution. He does not believe in a young Earth, Adam and Eve, or the true word of the Bible. He’s an evolutionist who happens to say “oh yeah, God guided evolution.” As if there was anything on the Earth not guided by God! Just because he’s one of the few scientists who isn’t an atheist he’s supposed to be one of us? No thanks. I’d rather go with someone who didn’t drink the Old Earth Kool-aid. TonyT 11:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

BTW, Gordy Slack should look at this example of the science/religion dynamic and draw conclusions. Proper conclusions. Which would be different from his current conclusions in which the EVIL DARWINISTS are routinely attacking the faithful over their beliefs.

This is, in a nutshell, illustrates the entire dynamic. The ignorant religion-bots attack some scientists who’s all “Ow, wow, this cool, let me share it with the world” because they want to own the freakin’ universe without challenge.

(And why the hopping fuck would the Creator design bacteria with the intention that they reveal themselves capable of evolving a handy biochemical trick thousands of years later in Richard Lenski’s incubator? Please tell me “Dr Paley” is a sane person having a laugh on Schlafly’s forum.)

Btw, how the fuck does Schlafly propose to discover whether or not E. coli were “potentiated” by the Creator to transport citrate? Are they going to claim that just because it was possible for the necessary mutations to occur, that it was thereby “potentiated” for that purpose?

I have the feeling that will be their response, eventually. Since they have no criteria for either “design” or “potentiation”, knowing as they do that they can never demonstrate planning, rationality, or purpose in organisms, the mere fact that it could happen will no doubt be called “potentiation”.

Potential implies “potentiation”, no doubt, just as function (“design” to the dishonest) implies a designer.

But the fact is that we rarely even talk about “potentiating” complex machinery for anything. It doesn’t make sense, for although a computer chip may have any number of potentials, it isn’t “potentiated” just because it might be adapted to act in some manner for which it was not designed.

Well, there’s not much point in playing these word games with the IDiots. I’m glad that Lenski was quite polite in his first response, and properly disparaging of Schlafly’s evident incompetence and lack of open-mindedness in the second. They’ll claim “potentiation” by the Creator, of course. It simply won’t mean anything, any more than “designer” and “creator” does to these nihilistic anti-science bigots.

Someone asked what was in the part that was apparently removed by the spam filter:

”
It hardly seems fair to censor part of Professor Lenski’s full and comprehensive reply. It also seems to be a little heavy-handed to say that people who ask questions about such censorship will be “dealt with accordingly”.–British_cons (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

No, the link should definitely not be revealed. Although I, naturally, don’t know what the link is to, though we can assume it was a shock site, foul language, pornography, or something in that line. Since Lenski knew that his response would be posted on this family-friendly encyclopedia, he would have purposefully put the link in to aggravate readers. That tells us a lot about his attitude, and by keeping the link intact, we let him “win”.

Speculation is running rampant on the talk page over at CP. Most speculate it was a link to a page on RationalWiki, which is a site that is almost entirely devoted to mocking the activities on CP.

Hardly surprising that Schlafly would “spam filter” it. And it’s quite amusing to watch Schlafly and his “acolytes” try to stiffle conversation about the link, why it was removed, what it linked to, etc. etc. Heck, some are even making the accusation that it was a porn link.

It does make me a little sad, though, that Lenski is dealing with this bullcrap at all when by rights he should be enjoying that rock-star lifestyle of someone who just published an excellent paper. It’s all hookers and blow for the PI, right?

“Now, if I was really mean, I might only share the ancestral strain, and let the scientists undertake the 20 years of our experiment. . . . But I’m a nice guy, . . . so if a competent scientist asks for them, I would even send a sample of the evolved E. coli that now grows vigorously on citrate.”

LOL. Wow. If Lenski were really mean, he might only have responded with derision, but he’s a nice guy. So we got a wonderful education. Thank you for sharing.

Dr. Lenski is a gentleman and a scholar. To so effectively, rationally, and patiently dismember Schfly’s ignorance is impressive and this letter is brilliant rhetoric. Lenski is a sterling example of the highest class of scientist, not only an excellent researcher but a well-spoken and thoughtful individual who values educating others.

Now, I shall enjoy seeing if this exchange continues. While I do not wish to see Dr. Lenski’s time wasted, his writing is certainly the sort that could sway those on the fence–those who can still be swayed.

Science is collaborative… and that is what Andy Schafly can’t understand.

He seems to view the presentation of “raw data” as part of a legal or argumentative process. Since he has failed to present either the capability or the interest in reproducing or furthering the concepts presented in the paper he has precluded himself from receiving access to the raw materials of this experiment, the archive of bacterial lineage.

In a sense, since he has done nothing but communicate in a combative and uselessly argumentative manner he has proven himself unable to interact in a manner that would support progress. He has failed the “90/10 rule” of scientific discourse.

Although I, naturally, don’t know what the link is to, though we can assume it was a shock site, foul language, pornography, or something in that line. Since Lenski knew that his response would be posted on this family-friendly encyclopedia, he would have purposefully put the link in to aggravate readers. That tells us a lot about his attitude, and by keeping the link intact, we let him “win”.

… Several of your acolytes have pointed this out to you, and that your motives are unclear or questionable at best, but you and your cronies dismissed their concerns as rants and even expelled some of them from posting on your website.Link was to here if I have it sorted out correctly:http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia#Banning_Users
[Ed.: citation omitted due to spam filter] Several also pointed out that I had very quickly and straightforwardly responded that the methods and data supporting the evolution of the citrate-utilization capacity are already provided in our paper.

I can almost picture red-assed Andy Schlafly, fresh from that spanking, reading that with his jaw gaping and tears of confusion streaming down his face.

I can’t, because Andy Schlafly suffers from the arrogance of ignorance. He simply has no clue how clueless he is about science and is utterly shameless. I predict he’ll put together some BS response whining about persecution and “ad hominem” attacks, while blustering and threatening FOI requests because Lensky’s work was at least partially NIH-funded.

I am amazed that they would submit Lenski’s reply on conserveapedia. It doesn’t seem like conserveapedia’s tactics to post on their own website something that pwns them. Ah who am I kidding, with their warped little idealizations they NEVER LOOSE! Makes me laugh every time I see a creationist website talk about how people supporting evo always loose in a debate. Stupid funny.

Great rebuttal to utter nonsense. But I think it’s utterly wasted on a demagogue like Schlafly who is not at all interested in what we commonly think of as truth. But I’m sure his harassment of Lenski gives him street cred with his cronies for “sticking it to the scientific establishment.” He’s probably angling for a part in Expelled 2: Revenge of the IDiots.

Don’t be surprised if Schlafly continues to push this and gets some red state politico to help him with his witch hunt (as in the Sternberg case).

I wish I had as much class as Dr. Lenski. I think his response wins the debate on that point alone.

not trying to pick a fight but this doesn’t make sense. he wins because he’s right. the class is just a bonus. on the subject of class, i find it interesting that everyone is posting laudatory remarks for Dr. Lenski’s class when i’ve noticed other comment threads in which people are quick to reply “they don’t deserve it!” when posters suggest similar approaches. certainly they do not deserve it but it may be more effective.

Breathtaking response… Lenski sounds like a professor talking to an arrogant student who is about to fail his class, putting Schafly in his place, but saying maybe there’s a chance he can pass if he quits being so egotistical and close-minded.

I can see why they wouldn’t want to include the link to the RationalWiki page:

…One theory which has emerged is that Conservapedia is not run by the Religious Right at all; that instead is an extreme parody of fringe loonbags, such as the Westboro Baptist Church, since it is hard to imagine such a large group of people being so loopdy loopder.

That was a beautiful clear letter that explained thoughts so very clearly; a clear example of the sort of scientific writing that we do need so much more of in order to help more people understand science just even a wee bit better.

Imagine what would happen if Schlafly actually recieved some cultures from Lenksi’s lab…

Looks into Petri dish, snorts, grumbles, “They’re STILL BACTERIA.”

Gotta love the IDers, a real scientists sweats for 20 frickin’ years, and they just sit in a wood-paneled office, playing Tetris, living off wingnut welfare, and they whine about not getting equal time.

That was the part of Paley’s post that did it for you? Nah, for me it was this bluster:

“…Thus, Prof. Lenski et al. should supply Conservapedia, as stewards, with samples of the preserved E. coli colonies so that the data can be accessible to unbiased researchers outside of the hegemony of the Darwinian academia, even if it won’t be put to immediate examination by Mr. Schlafly. This is simply about keeping tax-payer-funded scientists honest.”

You can’t reason when they are injecting this conspiracy theory garbage into the argument. They refuse to let that crap go. But Paley has some gall to even say this. And Conservapaediea is a legitimate entity? Since when did they transition from a group of reality-hating malcontents to a respectable outlet of information? How would “Conservapaedia” accept the requested samples? As Lenski easily shows, no doubt the Conservapaedia crowd has no intention of conducting honest review, nor do they have a plan or the funds with which to do so. And Paley dare says it’s fine if they don’t get around to doing the research any time soon, even if they do take the samples. It’s just all a shameless ploy by a band of idiots to try and insert themselves into relevancy, like a dunce with a pitchfork daring to sit with the Knights at the round table. Not that Lenski thinks he’s a big bold leader, but at the very least he’s put in the time, the effort, the humility.

But how are we to know if these traits weren’t ‘potentiated’ by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right? The only way this can be settled is if we have access to the genetic sequences of the bacteria colonies so that we can apply CSI techniques and determine if these ‘potentiated genotypes’ originated through blind chance or intelligence.

Yeah, I’m sure the Conservapedia people will settle that question if they have access to the genetic sequences of the bacteria colonies. Thanks for the laugh Dr. Richard Paley.

I only wish I had the patience and political correctness to respond to such people in such a nice way. I think that it just goes to show you who is right in this case. If you were watching a debate where one person says “I don’t believe you” and the other goes on for four hours with data to back up what he was saying, and the first person has nothing more to add than “I still don’t believe you” – who would win that debate?

The omitted citation is to RationalWiki a site that conservapedia has deemed unmentionable in its hallowed halls. Dr. Lenski was kind enough to send me an original copy of the letter that I am working on transferring the format and such to wiki format.

Hello….what an outstanding and consciousness-raising reply from Dr. Lenski. I know Schlafly is preparing a viciously clueless response, but for now I can savor the smackdown.

Regarding Lenski’sPPPS: The real issue is Schlafly’s understanding of the Bible. It’s not that he and his acolytes are incapable of imaging a god with the power to engineer evolution. It’s that this is simply not what the Bible says. The Bible states god created plants, animals, human beings…..no mention of them changing over time or any of that. You know, stuff that people thought was real before we had science. So Schlafly and his goons are standing on their interpretation of the Bible, and trying desperately to deal with its myriad scientific contradictions.

I’m not a biologist, just a mere computer scientist, and Lenski strongly succeeded to explain things in terms even I could understand. I laud his efforts.

Andy cannot back down now. It would require him to completely change his thinking; he’d have to acknowledge that an instance of evolution has been observed, and this instance of evolution occurred because of a change in this bacteria’s environment. In other words, it completely blows away all of Andy’s positions.

So he can’t change his position. It’d be a lot like OJ Simpson changing his story at this point in time; he can’t do that either.

FWIW, Lenski has my support. From a mere computer guy. Because our culture is at stake. That’s why. We need to keep together when our side is attacked, especially when the attacks are so poorly assembled.

“But how are we to know if these traits weren’t ‘potentiated’ by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right?” endquote

what a fucking asshole.

well, when scientists find god and then design a god shield we can then test that idea once they have also gone back in time in the time machine i suppose they will need. until then lets just make up any shit we want, as usual, fucking religious freaks plain and simple, they piss me off.

Love the brutal sarcasm and disrespect where disrespect is due. It’s almost like he’s been reading all the shite I’ve been churning out over the years, except he’s unfortunately somewhat toned down the sort of creative puerility that makes humourless creationists froth at the mouth.

i thought the post scripts + were quite necessary, a nice little extra dig just to gte some blood pressure raised, what is it with creationists and a lack of humor, in fact i only find religious people humorous when they are not being religious.

Although PZ gave us a goodly slice of Lenski to save the chore of visiting Conservæpedia, it’s worth going there just to see gems like this:

“Dr. Lenski, I hope you get to read this.

I have no dispute with most of your second letter (or your first one), and you will note above my objections to the letters being sent to you, but do wish to respond to your second-last paragraph (the P.P.P.S.). You point out earlier in your letter than Andy Schlafly lacks expertise in the relevant fields, but you then proceed to pontificate on an area in which you appear to have no expertise, biblical exegesis.

The main problem with your claim that God may have used evolution is not that He could not have, but that He said that he didn’t (or, more precisely, what He said that He did is incompatible with evolution). What is “insulting to God” is rejecting what He has plainly told us that He did.

This point has been made over and over by creationists, so your lack of awareness of this demonstrates that you have little idea of what creationists actually claim and believe, yet it seems that you yourself are willing to go beyond your expertise when it suits you.

Philip J. Rayment 11:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)”

So if God didn’t do it, who does the smoking gun point to. Thor? Jupiter? Baal?

Dr. Paley has been taking the mickey out of Conservapedia since day one. As I recall, he proposed that classical Greek references to fauns and satyrs were actually sightings of kangaroos (lost kangaroos, presumably)hustling their marsupial butts towards Australia. An alternate Palian theory was that Pangaea existed until after the deluge and that the assorted critters merely had to hunker down on the appropriate bit of land (sort of like finding your gate at the airport) to be whisked away to the proper latitude.

He has also proposed that Apple computers are satanic, as they gave some OS a demonic name. There is no Fellowship University, if you Google it you you merely get tens of thousands of references to XXXX Fellowship, University of YYYY. There is a discipline called theobiology, but it has nothing to do with Creationism.

In short Dr. Paley = POE in action, specially since he’s been fooling with Conservapedia for years and they still aint rumbled him.

I’m curious about the use of the dipthong here when the webmonkeys at Conserv–that site do not. Are we poking gentle fun at their general clueless pomposity? If so, I approve.

Conservapædia dislikes all the British spelling on wikipedia. Conservapædia is the Anglicised version of their name. Thus we use it to gratuitously piss them off – and educate them about proper English.

Good lesson. Why dont we go on the offensive, since this is a culture war, then we should use military language. Why not start publically teaching the difference between creationism, intelligent desgn v evolution, big bang. Not in the schools, but in public forums like church basements, lecture halls at local facilities etc. Show what the deficiencies of ID and Creationism is in the light of science.

I suppose these tribulations we have to endure from the reigious retards is a good way to hone our always superior rebuttals. What better way to sharpen the senses but to know how these turnips think and act? We need them if only to make them look like the idiots they profess to be. More cannon fodder!

“It’s a very simple and lovely story, and I did not ask any questions, storm out, or demand the evidence that it happened as written at a time when science did not yet exist. I was there in the realm of spirituality and mutual respect, not confusing a house of religion for a science class or laboratory. And it was a beautiful wedding, too.”

I hope someone who knows Dr. Lenski will convey this ethereal equivalent of a standing ovation to him. His surgical strike of a response just absolutely made my week. I am humbled and proud to be a member of the same profession as he.

SteveS, #144: That’s exactly what they did in Sacramento. The Zoo sponsored a 3-part lecture about why evolution is important. The Bee had several articles about it because the Zoo expected a rash of creationists would disrupt these lectures.

In the end, the lecture series were very popular — you had to reserve weeks in advance — and the creationists were a no-show. That outcome surprised and delighted me.

Though we have since suspected that Dr. Paley is, in fact, a spoofer, might the rubes at Conservapædia believe that there is such a thing as “CSI techniques”? If so, what would they be? Would it be like Daniel Smith in the “Sorry, Vox” thread, where he is completely unable to describe what techniques one would use to detect design or Complex Specified Information, or whatever the bullshit abbreviation of the week is? Or would they take CSI to stand for Crime Scene Investigation and imagine Grissom and whoever else is in that show I’ve never watched take Dr. Lenski’s bacteria to their moodily lit lab? And which would be more funny and sad?

Behe? Are you serious? He’s supposed to be a Creation Scientist? The guy believes in the big bang, an earth billions of years old, and evolution. He does not believe in a young Earth, Adam and Eve, or the true word of the Bible. He’s an evolutionist who happens to say “oh yeah, God guided evolution.”

Seems Schlafly makes several mistakes that an IDer never would, demanding data instead of strawmen “proof” and confusing a legal situation (you pay for your evidence) with a scientific (the other guy pay for your evidence). FrankJ over at PT will have a heyday over this, as it is his his proposed strategy to make creationists fracture along the ideological lines ID’s big tent tries to protect.

Keen readers at Conservapedia noticed that the the phrase [Ed.: citation omitted due to spam filter] is contained in the second of the Professor’s replies. Inquires about this withholding of information were made by some readers at Conservapedia. After at least two users were blocked for pursuing the issue it was revealed that the offending link was to none other than a certain RW. It was further established that the initials RW referred to a “Wiki claimed to be Rational”.

This ironic failure to reveal data caused some interest both at Conservapedia and RationalWiki. Our article above has the full information included in the professor’s reply as we do not believe in withholding public information. For those who are interested, the link Conservapedia censored is http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

Funny. I didn’t hear anything. I thought all their information was gleaned from an ancient collection of accounts generated by simple goat-herders. Who knows what they thought they were hearing, or if it even happened at all. Just doesn’t seem like a very credible source. Morons.

Okay, I need a coffee break. I omitted FrankJ’s strategy – it is to demand the creationists to face up to their inconsistent dogma – and his favorite target is to mention Behe’s part acceptance of evolution and common descent.

“Just because he’s one of the few scientists who isn’t an atheist he’s supposed to be one of us? No thanks. I’d rather go with someone who didn’t drink the Old Earth Kool-aid. TonyT 11:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)”

I am SO going to have to make a “I drank the Old Earth Kool-aid!” T-shirt.

But how are we to know if these traits weren’t ‘potentiated’ by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right?

Perhaps Rocky Mountain would like to share the data s/he has collected through years of painstaking lab work. Or maybe s/he’s less of a bench researcher, but she should still be able to list off a few of his or her more substantive publications.

“Just more left-wing name calling. Is that all you guys can come up with?”

Very well, put up your dukes, Rocky, let’s take this outside!

You really can’t expect reading for comprehension with fellows like Assfly. I’m sure when he got this letter, he just scanned it for insults. That’s their favorite tactic, provoke the enemy to anger, then whine about being yelled at. With “tax dollars” no less. The modern journalistic Balance worshippers really ought to take note of this whole episode to familiarize themselves with who the players are in this “debate”: on one side, you have the hard-working researchers, on the other, you have a bunch of inveterate pests.

They talk about being tough. They applaud toughness. They brag about toughness. But when push comes to shove, they’re at their happiest when they’re sending others to do their fighting for them. That’s why God invented poor kids and the GI Bill.

Bladyslaphead (#2), as a Brit, you might not understand the meaning of “Home run”, or it’s implications, but as an Americanism that is often used, it would be good to learn it.

A “Home run” in baseball is analagous to scoring a “six” in Cricket (i.e., hitting over the boundary). (In baseball, there is the added benefit of potentially scoring extra runs based on how many runners may already be on base – i.e., in play – meaning that the additional score can be anywhere from 1 – no runners to 4 – three runners.)

The implication of a home run is that the benefit gained from the endeavor was greater than expected (i.e., a lucky hit provided more runs than expected). Saying something was a “grand slam” (a special term for scoring 4 points from a home run) means that the benefit was disproportionally great. I don’t know if there is a similar implication for “hitting a six” (or the like) in Britain, though.

The implication of a home run is that the benefit gained from the endeavor was greater than expected (i.e., a lucky hit provided more runs than expected). Saying something was a “grand slam” (a special term for scoring 4 points from a home run) means that the benefit was disproportionally great.

Not exactly. It’s more like maximum gain from maximum performance. There’s nothing lucky or disproportionate about it. The implication is that it was earned – and that the resulting gain was very much at the expense of the opponent.

Aschfly hung a curve, and Lenski hit it out of the park. ‘Nuff said.

It might be a grand slam if there were more ducks on the pond (ie. runners on base; metaphorically, more at stake). Dover was pretty much a grand slam for the forces of reason. It seems, however, that every day brings a whole new ballgame. Sigh.

Assfly brought a plastic spork to a gunfight. Lenski brought a Vulcan cannon and used it to obliterate him. The imbecile who limped away and turned up here with “I know you are, what am I?” deserves nothing but scorn. He’s not even worth going Elizabethan with our insults.

And lest you accuse me further of fraud, I do not literally mean that we have unicorns in the lab. Rather, I am making a literary allusion.

Priceless. Prizeworthy.

pain-staking

Actually, “painstaking” is “pains-taking” etymologically.

The comment by “Dr. Paley” really sums up the reason why creationists cannot be talked with rationally:

No, he is one of the rare examples of a cdesign proponentsist who actually suggests a test for his hypothesis — see comment 26. Sequencing the genome of the ancestral strain and showing that the citrate transporter is simply not there would convince him (…provided it isn’t done by a “Darwinist”, because the testimony of a woman Darwinist counts at best half).

Unless, of course, he really is the Objective one…

Expelled 2: Revenge of the IDiots.

LOL!

Or perhaps the No-Bull Science prize?

LOL! (But I repeat myself.)

I’m curious about the use of the […] [ligature] here when the webmonkeys at Conserv–that site do not. Are we poking gentle fun at their general clueless pomposity?

The implication of a home run is that the benefit gained from the endeavor was greater than expected (i.e., a lucky hit provided more runs than expected). Saying something was a “grand slam” (a special term for scoring 4 points from a home run) means that the benefit was disproportionally great. I don’t know if there is a similar implication for “hitting a six” (or the like) in Britain, though.

Posted by: Umlud | June 24, 2008 4:10 PM

also, if you want someone to take a baseball comment seriously, don’t refer to runs as points.

I only wish 10% of the general population were half as polite as Dr. Lembski was when pestered by malicious and ill-intentioned morons. When the next edition of the Oxford English Dictionary is published his picture will be posted next to the definition of the expression “class act”.

I’m very *very* impressed with Lenski’s ability to have written what is clearly a balance of many intellectual and emotional issues.

Cripes, scientists have enough to deal with just making sure their research is solid, that they’re claims can stand up reasonably well to *honest* verification, and that their conclusions are balanced while also interesting. Dealing with a bunch of ill-willed creeps who are guaranteed to do nothing else but lie until the rapture (when, presumably they would be rewarded for their incessant lies and deceit??) is really above and beyond the call of duty.

Emmet Caulfield @195:The imbecile who limped away and turned up here with “I know you are, what am I?” deserves nothing but scorn. He’s not even worth going Elizabethan with our insults.

Very true. If everyone kept their insults at that level, maybe some day stuff would get through. The people who use the “It’s because I’m a creeestian!!!” whine to get what they want don’t understand that it’s not because of their religion, it’s because they are arrogant and pushy with their beliefs and that a lot of their political agenda opposes the values of freedom that they claim to be protecting. I suggest that perhaps “You’re not the boss of me!” would be appropriate in that case. Even if it doesn’t get through to them, it would at least be satire.

Hitting for six exists as a metaphor and implies a successful defence followed by a counter attack. Cricket-baseball comparisons can be problematic, with one major difference being that the attacking team in baseball is the batting team (scoring runs as the outs inexorably mount up) whereas the attacking team in cricket is the bowling team (getting wickets as the runs inexorably mount up).

It is as though a person thinks that God must have the same limitations when it comes to creation as a person who is unable to understand, or even attempt to understand, the world in which we live. Isn’t that view insulting to God?

Yes it is insulting and utterly hubristic, but “the world we live in”? No, they think God has the same limitations when it comes to creation as a bunch of ignorant – for their time – sheepherders fresh out of the dessert three thousand years ago.

These folks think God is too stupid to use metaphors to explain difficult concepts to people who could not begin to comprehend them but, rather, made the world in a way which a bunch of monumentally ignorant – even for their own time – nomads could grasp.

Their God is not but themselves writ large. Just as patriotism and morality are not but their own prejudices applied to their fellow man. These are a bunch of truly shitty people. Bad scientists, bad Americans, bad people and worse theologians.

Wow… just wow. I made a big mistake, and clicked on the link through to Conservapedia. What a gurgling, steaming pit of insanity. It’s hard to believe the same species inhabits that place as this. I’m ashamed to have been in the computer industry for several decades, and thereby to have helped, to some extent, provide them with this place in which to parade their, well, I’m not quite sure what to call it, but it certainly isn’t pretty.

And they are busy claiming that Lenski “writes like a 12-year old”! What an evil pit of venomous, slack-jawed, knuckle-dragging morons.

y’know, reading the conversation on the conservapedia talk page makes me wonder if Bugler is:
(a) for real
(b) the world’s best ever satirist
(c) a sociology student running an experiment.
Bugler just seems too perfect a specimen to be real.
Consider this (from the Missing Link section)
`If you knew that is the site, it would be improper for you to mention it by name. Since you don’t know, it is utterly irresponsible of you to speculate.’
Translated:
those who know don’t tell, those who tell don’t know.
It’s a phrase that seems out of place in a conservapedia mindset.

My favorite part was Lenski reminding the idiot that he is covered in e. coli. It reminded me of an old saying of my grandmother’s – you can dip a turd in chocolate, but it will still taste like shit in the middle.

Richard Paley vomited, “But how are we to know if these traits weren’t ‘potentiated’ by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right?”

AH, so that’s the Plan. With that cat-out-of-the-bag we can readily appreciate their strategy: they can (and no doubt will) deny every bit of evidence for evolution by positing a pre-existing “potentiation” by a Designer Creator that is eventually revealed “when the time is right”.

Meaning, every friggin’ time real scientists perform a study that unambiguously demonstrates that evolution exists. (Which makes me wonder why these assholes haven’t once embarked on a research project of their own to demonstrate what Paley describes as “potentiated genotypes”. Oops, I forgot, how silly of me – they would rather spend their money in a political/commercial/marketing way promoting their gripes.)

In the future, we’ll see lots more of this. Anytime any researcher says something like, “Here, look at this new evidence of evolution we’ve found” these clowns will insist that it’s not REALLY evolution because the Designer Creator just made it look that way. “It’s a Divine Potentiation! It’s a Divine Potentiaton!”

And on and on it will go.

There is no limit to how low these ingrate liars will stoop. The concept of shame is utterly foreign to them.

I guess we’ll just have to keep pointing that out. Anger and outrage and indignation are useful and even wholesome tools. Use ‘em. Effectively. As weapons defending reason.

The stubborness involved is spectacular. Science alone can’t put it down – it just supplies all the necessary information. That information needs people who respect science and nature to wield it and call these charlatans out on their claims.

Richard Lenski is doing an AWESOME job. He’s my new hero.

Yeah, it can be nasty. (Gordy Slack, for example, would whine in agreement). It may not be science to stand up and strongly advocate science. So what? The object isn’t science, it is to be heard, and it is to be heard loudly and unequivocally. That’s how people do business. That’s how civilization progresses. That’s how futures are made or broken. If we don’t speak up, we surrender it all to ignorance and darkness.

My favorite part was Lenski reminding the idiot that he is covered in e. coli. It reminded me of an old saying of my grandmother’s – you can dip a turd in chocolate, but it will still taste like shit in the middle.

Thirty years or so ago, John Cooper Clarke wrote an ode to people like Schlafly (and Ken Ham). He called it

Twat

Like a Night Club in the morning, you’re the bitter end.
Like a recently disinfected shit-house, you’re clean round the bend.
You give me the horrors
too bad to be true
All of my tomorrow’s
are lousy coz of you.

You put the Shat in Shatter
Put the Pain in Spain
Your germs are splattered about
Your face is just a stain

You’re certainly no raver, commonly known as a drag.
Do us all a favour, here… wear this polythene bag.

You’re like a dose of scabies,
I’ve got you under my skin.
You make life a fairy tale… Grimm!

People mention murder, the moment you arrive.
I’d consider killing you if I thought you were alive.
You’ve got this slippery quality,
it makes me think of phlegm,
and a dual personality
I hate both of them.

Your bad breath, vamps disease, destruction, and decay.
Please, please, please, please, take yourself away.
Like a death a birthday party,
you ruin all the fun.
Like a sucked and spat our smartie,
you’re no use to anyone.
Like the shadow of the guillotine
on a dead consumptive’s face.
Speaking as an outsider,
what do you think of the human race

You went to a progressive psychiatrist.
He recommended suicide…
before scratching your bad name off his list,
and pointing the way outside.

You hear laughter breaking through, it makes you want to fart.
You’re heading for a breakdown,
better pull yourself apart.

Your dirty name gets passed about when something goes amiss.
Your attitudes are platitudes,
just make me wanna piss.

What kind of creature bore you
Was is some kind of bat
They can’t find a good word for you,
but I can…TWAT.

Late to the thread, but it occurs to me that “potentiation” – at least in the way the cdesign proponentsists use it – is basically “the ability to mutate”. I’d love to see them get hung up by that one…

I’ve only had lulz-induced involuntary nasal irrigation with coffee and milk, myself, so I hope you didn’t end up with a little chunk of pineapple in the nasopharynx: I once coughed a fragment of peanut up there and it annoyed the hell out of me for a full day :o)

No kidding. All these conservobots trying to protect my tax dollars seem to be directing said dollars to all the wrong places. Perhaps I ought to exercise my right as a citizen to tell them to go pound sand, and let me decide via the ballot box what is and is not a good thing to spend tax dollars on.

I think poor Rocky was horrified that some commenters here had less than perfectly kind and respectful words for the rude and ignorant Mr. Schlafly. Why he chose to characterize it as a “left-vs-right” issue rather than correctly identifying it as the “knowledge-and-integrity-vs-ignorance-and-dishonesty” issue that it very obviously is, I can’t say. Limbaugh-induced cognitive collapse, perhaps?

What an astute reply to that fuck Schlafly, Shitfly, whatever his name is. I know I’m late to the discussion but I disagree with Lenksi on the following statement “From the content on your website, it is clear that you, like many others, view God as the Creator of the Universe. I respect that view.” What is there to respect of this view? Some credulous assholes actually believe that an etheral being dictates the universe through various degrees of interference? I realize Lenksi doesn’t want to offend the religious, but the truth is, he’s walking on eggshells to avoid offending idiots who deserve to have their small religious/spiritual minds examined. Would Lenksi respect the view that closet gnomes mysteriously live and feed off lost clothes, making sure to magically dictate whether one starts off their day feeling malcontent or ecstatic? He would probably tell the goofball believing such tripe to go to a fucking psychiatrist, yet he “respects” other idiots believing in an equally mindless tripe, only because billions on the planet buy into it in various forms? What the fuck?

By the way, you all owe yourselves a laugh by skimming over their article on evolution. It’s patently ridiculous. Lastly, isn’t Conservapedia’s use of the Wiki format a tad against the spirit behind that product? It’s like wikipedia with all the peer-review removed, but they kept all the crazy.

I kind of wish Lenski had offered to send the bugs in his first response, along with all the required forms, shipping permit applications, etc. This exchange has been educational for those of us not intimately familiar with Dr. Lenski’s work, but it’s not the optimal rhetorical score.

There are plenty of people out there willing to drag the dullards through basic science.

But the dullards do not care about the science, or the truth. They like it when we call them names though, so they can accuse us of being arrogant. That is what is so great about Lenski’s thoughtful responses combined with blogs like Pharyngula that mash in the niceties in an irreverent way.

Alex, Righty-O! I rather enjoy the name calling myself *grin*, I’ve learned so many new words here. I’d never have thought of ‘snot-groveling fucktard’ on my own. Of course it has played hell with my nostrils, you can only snort out so much food and drink in one day.

If Professor Lenski does not have children I would like to humbly and sincerely offer my body to carry his DNA so it may be spread throughout the world. It is simply mandatory that this man reproduces.

Thats was simply, simply, simply….bugger, words fail me in the presence of such magnificence.

If, in your biology 301 class, you had a student who consistently asked bio101 questions, would you waste the rest of the students’ time going over a pre-req?

These creotards have been relying on this and succeeding.

The difference is that a dumb-ass, or disruptive student is not currently influencing public policy.

They are teaching this crap and other Bible Bullshit in Public Schools all over the Country, they are only stopped when the District is successfully sued.

These fucks are to be ignored at your own peril. Chris Hedges calls the Rise of the Christian Right the most dangerous movement in the History of the US, and he’s a Protestant who doesn’t like atheists.

I think the Confederacy was the most dangerous movement considering the fatalities, but I’ll give him second most dangerous.

You have to fight these asswipes, that are not a lunatic fringe, they are running the goddam country while playing the victim.

They are treacherous, they are evil, they are dishonest because there is no such thing as a lie, a theft or a murder if it serves the Lord.

Up front: This has been a tough day. My PCRs got contaminated at the overcrowded bench, my temperamental facet joint is causing me to have back spasms, I can’t take aspirin for it because I’m having minor surgery tomorrow, one of my best friends is also facing surgery this week, my mother is stressed out because she’s moving, my washing machine is having mechanical difficulties, and I’m about a month behind on some other things I have to do at work.

But I’ve been smiling all day, and it’s all because of Prof. Lenski’s letter. That’s how great it was.

“I find it baffling, however, that someone can worship God as the all-mighty Creator while, at the same time, denying even the possibility (not to mention the overwhelming evidence) that God’s Creation involved evolution. It is as though a person thinks that God must have the same limitations when it comes to creation as a person who is unable to understand, or even attempt to understand, the world in which we live.”

Um, it’s a good letter. But it’s not something that a host of scientists, and even non-scientists, could not and would not have written.

I don’t quite get the hagiography surrounding the Lenski response. He’s just dealing with a mindless pest using rather obvious facts and necessary disrespect for the BS spewed by Shlaflea. Good stuff, but nothing that made me want a smoke after reading it.

Let’s put it this way–I doubt that Lenski would like to be remembered for taking apart this gnat. His work is what is impressive.

yes, of course Lenski’s work is what’s really impressive. But what his letters show up very favourably is not so much Lenski the scientist as Lenski the teacher. You’ll have noticed he lays great stress on his responsibilities as an educator, and he’s right to do so. Not every great scientist is a great teacher, nor vice versa. But Lenski seems to be both.

Perhaps there’s no hope for Schlafly, but there might be for those of his homeschooled minions whose intellects have not yet totally atrophied. A long shot, no doubt. But as we say over here, “hope is the last thing to die”, and Lenski refuses to stop hoping, and helping where he can. Yet one more reason he’s a hero.

And Lenski is not only a good teacher. He is also, obviously, a gentleman (by Oscar Wilde’s definition).

They say Lenski is writing ‘like a 12-year-old’? Considering these mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers can, on a good day, only manage writing like a 5-year-old, I think we can assume that means it’s beyond their comprehension – like most things beyond ‘goddidit’.

Sounds like there’s a niche for a new reality-tv competition. We could call it Science Idol. One round will have to be rebutting IDiotic claims in such a way as it can be understoond by lay people. Lenski can be guest expert and give them tips.

Maybe we can get Schlafly on to be the guest judge who everyone hates…oh no, wait – he has to at least know something about what’s being presented…

Wow. There hasn’t been a rout like that since Cannae. Regarding my “tax dollars,” I would be happy to see the percentage of the Pentagon’s budget represented by the percentage of its employees in attendance at Ken Ham’s prayer breakfast be given to Dr. Lenski to fund his research. Before cutting the Pentagon’s budget down to what’s actually needed for America’s defense, that is.

I must say, I got a huge kick out of the proposal that the Conservapaedians use “CSI techniques” to analyze the bacteria. What, are they expecting to find Yahweh’s fingerprints with one of those ultraviolet lights? “We’ll use CSI techniques! Just like on TV!” Hahaha! If you guys must emulate a television show, may I humbly suggest Lost?

If we can’t give the good Doctor a Molly, can we institute a new Pharyngula award for masterful gentlemanly/-womanly smackdown of idiocy, the Order of Lenski?

I hope someone points Dr. Lensky to this thread so he and his co-workers will know how much they and their work are appreciated.

Well I hope we’re not going to stop here. It’s not just an issue of will the evolutionist make their data open to the public, but we must validate that data, yes? I’m curious to know which university Mr Schlafly will be working with to receive the biological samples and also I’m curious to know what researcher(s) he will ask to experiment/validate the data. I don’t recall an evolutionist ever being this open with their data so this is all so very intriguing. Perhaps the Discovery Institute could help, they have a laboratory in Seattle Washington where they conduct intelligent design experiments and biology research all the time. That would be a logical resource. Miles 18:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

One person’s “seething contempt” is another person’s “appropriate level of thinly-veiled dismissive hauteur.” Because my people skills (and wardrobe) are superior to Dembski’s, my characterization is more accurate.

As someone who grew up in the states and has lived ‘down under’ for almost three decades, the cricket term that most closely matches “grand slam” comes from backyard cricket, with a ball hit far enough out of play (into the mean neighbours yard you are not allowed to go get it from, for example), that it ends your turn as batter. (And also likely ends the game at that point.)

SC my friend, understand that to the creationist, All the DI has to do is *SAY* they are doing ID experiments at their Seattle location, and the nodding apologists take it as “gospel”, if you will.

At the very least it looks like ASchlafly’s band of conservobots will at the very least take him to task – maybe – and make sure he follows through with what he will surely have no idea how to do. Perhaps when/if Mr. Schlafly fails, it will be instructive for hopefully the majority of them that their position is in fact utter trash, upheld by nothing but wishes and day dreams.

Well, I happen to be lucky enough to be sitting mere miles from Dr. Lenski’s lab, where the magic, I mean science, happened.

I noticed on Schlafly’s second letter (see RW for the full text), he CCed it to both PNAS and New Scientist. Any word if they have bothered to respond? Not that they need to, but I think it would add a new level of hilarity if they both told Schlafly to shove it.

P.S. Did you know that your own bowels harbor something like a billion (1,000,000,000) E. coli at this very moment? So remember to wash your hands after going to the toilet, as I hope your mother taught you.

Now I have visions of Phyllis going Lady Macbeth on Andy’s UNCLEAN hands!

Prof. Lenski made a model response.
Polite and informative yet dismissive.
Of course, Shafly will attempt to spin his being schooled as being just another part of the “Darwinist Hegemony” blocking their attempt to get at “the Truth.”

In the meantime, I applaud Professor Lenski for his well-done dissection of Schafly’s blather.

RE: awarding Dr Lenski a Molly, or else coming up with an “external” equivalent:

I’d happily vote for Lenski if he were nominated for the OM, but maybe a second honour really is in order for those writing outside these comments boxes. It needn’t be a monthly thing: it could be an ad hoc, on-the-spot affair, awarded whenever PZ thinks it appropriate or (as here) Teh People have spoken.

As a name, I’d suggest The Order of the Lampyridae, because people like Lenski, in sharp distinction to people like Schlafly, create light rather than heat.

Only thing is, Lenski’s ought properly to be the second such honour, the first going to Peter Irons.

These fucks are to be ignored at your own peril. Chris Hedges calls the Rise of the Christian Right the most dangerous movement in the History of the US, and he’s a Protestant who doesn’t like atheists.

I think the Confederacy was the most dangerous movement considering the fatalities, but I’ll give him second most dangerous.

Funny, I think the Christian Right is the Confederacy in modern clothes.

Re Mrs Tilton’s #309 and others: I quite like the idea of an “award” for non-blog folk. While I like Mrs T’s Order of the Lampyridae, I propose the Order of Prometheus for the “original” light bearer. Sadly, Lenski is also getting a little feeling of having scavengers pulling at is entrails.

kcrady wrote: I must say, I got a huge kick out of the proposal that the Conservapaedians use “CSI techniques” to analyze the bacteria. What, are they expecting to find Yahweh’s fingerprints with one of those ultraviolet lights?

Corollary to “Truth is stranger than fiction:” “ID ‘reasoning’ is stranger than any mockery thereof.”

I believe it was Sal Cordova who first raised the idea that evidence of creation by a deity might be found in “DNA steganography,” a sort of Godly equivalent of the “Body by Fisher” logo that used to appear in General Motors automobiles.

While reading the goings on over at Crapservopedia, I am stunned by the way that anyone who even remotely says anything the least bit negative about ID or the Disco Institute is threatened with or outright banned. The same goes for anyone who raises serious objections to what Schitfly is doing. Hilarious!!! I love watching Schitfly make a fool out of himself in public!

He seems to have missed the point that laboratory analysis of E. coli, means examinining bacteria in a laboratory, and the bacteria themselves, and how they have changed, constitute the data.

Doesn’t matter. Just so long as Schafly can start a “missing data” rumor for all the creationist denialists to quote mine all over the place. That’s all that really matters. Schafly doesn’t give a hoot about any “data”.

But perhaps because you did not bother even to read our paper, or perhaps because you aren’t very bright, you seem not to understand that we have the actual, living bacteria that exhibit the properties reported in our paper, including both the ancestral strain used to start this long-term experiment and its evolved citrate-using descendants.

I think I just understood what “irreducibly complex” really means. It’s a fact, event or statement so simple it cannot be further simplified and yet a creationist cannot understand it, yes?

I believe it was Sal Cordova who first raised the idea that evidence of creation by a deity might be found in “DNA steganography,” a sort of Godly equivalent of the “Body by Fisher” logo that used to appear in General Motors automobiles.

Sounds like the Bible Code – but, given that DNA is actually quite long, messages are bound to be found by sheer coincidence. I suggest rationalists get in first, and find messages to “verify” Lord of the Rings.

What a sick bunch they’ve got over there. Conservapedia is emblematic of so much of what’s wrong with the Right Wing – an obsessive, twisted sense of what’s important and a badly distorted sense of what’s real.

In college, I lived in a house rented out by Roger Schlafly. Roger spent long hours doing programming for Borland. He later received a tad of fame in mathematical circles by proving some theorem relating to bubbles. A good speed chess player. One of the renters was obviously effeminately gay, but Roger didn’t seem to have a problem with it.

Anyway, Roger was always a decent guy, so I’m thinking that Schlafly syndrome is recessive, or only partially expressed.

Slightly off-topic, but I would like to toss this out there though for the commenters (and readers) who equate homeschooling with extreme religion. They aren’t the same exact thing or necessarily a cause & effect situation. Seriously, Google “atheist homeschooler”. I am an atheist homeschooling mom as are several of my friends. Further, one of those homeschooling mom friends is married to a public school science teacher (primarily AP Physics) – and you wouldn’t believe some of the freakishly fact-phobic things those kids come up with in class because of their religious beliefs.

Our children go out in public, hang out with a variety of kids with a variety of backgrounds, and aren’t afraid of strangers or strange ideas (although they also aren’t afraid to challenge strange ideas when they do find them). We moms understand and teach the reality of evolution. Please don’t lump us all together.

Damn, that was good. Someone needs to sit down with Gordie Slack and go over it with him, point by point. Including the part where Lenski says he’s not writing for Schlafly’s (lack of) benefit, but for other people out there. Finally, someone else who gets the concept of bounded rhetorical spaces, and that not all speech acts have to be all things to all people! Woo-hoo!!

Logicel, thanks for pointing out that Lenski’s also the go-to guy to find out why I think most strongly umami food tastes utterly foul…

I read this yesterday and was surprised to see it still going on today goes to show you how good honest rational replies to dishonest negative BS can stimulate conservation.

I think that the popularity of the CSI franchise is a good thing in a general way. Though I can’t watch more than 10 minutes in a row before I have to run screaming from the room. The shows are about the only things on popular broadcast TV that glamorize a scientific evidence based approach to reality, and in this way I think it is subversive to strictly faith based reality.
so let them, let anyone look at the evidence, all obtained within strict guidelines to avoid any contamination and to insure objectivity. Is to do so not to accept the scientific method?

But perhaps because you did not bother even to read our paper, or perhaps because you aren’t very bright, you seem not to understand that we have the actual, living bacteria that exhibit the properties reported in our paper, including both the ancestral strain used to start this long-term experiment and its evolved citrate-using descendants.

Am I the only one worried some nut may try to vandalize the lab when Schlafley’s bunch finally figures this out? I hope security is good.

I have only just discovered this Conservapedia cesspool, but what kind of traffic does it get? I admit ignorance, maybe it’s a phenomenon and I’ve missed the bus… but if not, isn’t replying TWICE just going to raise these morons’ profile? On the other hand, this whole debacle (which I literally StumbledUpon) also led me to RationalWiki, so there’s certainly a good side to it as well.

It’s interesting to learn that Andy Schlafly is the son of Phyllis Schlafly, wonder of wonders, a woman who would take us back to the mythical good old days when women differed to men and kept their heads bowed, not that she ever did. I fear there is no hope for her spawn.

Lensky, is a person I can admire. He is a person with real class, a good teacher, and someone who can speak/write with clarity. The same can be said for PZ Myers, and why I keep coming back here.

It’s amazing Lenski has such patience with creationists, 20 years and much work by both him and his colleagues, and naturally creationists say it’s all a fraud. Although his research probably teaches him some patience Maybe all people should do this kind of research for a while as a character building experience.

The site is currently under maintenance. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.